Government - http://maxpages.com/minnickward4/SEPT_2002_LETTER_TO

Dear Editor of the Press & Light:

The Building & Lands Committee is reviewing our PCD ordinance. I recall when the PUDs, now PCDs, were first discussed, we were told we were keeping the country in N. Ridgeville--that we were preserving the country-like atmosphere with green or open spaces. However, in our PCD ordinance we find that those green or open spaces include parking lots, detention basins, commercial golf courses, and wetlands.

In comparing Waterbury (Forest City) PCD with their developments in other areas, our ordinance is by far the most lenient. According to Forest City's brochure, which was given to council members a few years ago, Eaton Estates' 625 acres in Sagamore Hills has 1,400 dwellings; Thornbury's 316-acre community in Solon consists of 71 one-acre lots, 118 one-half acre lots and 61 detached cluster homes with 120 acres of open space; Ethan's Green's 880 acres in Twinsburg consists of some 2,000 dwellings with over 180 acres of open space, an 18-hole golf course, and 44 acres of commercial uses; and Wheatfield, New York has 1,500 acres with 2,000 dwellings. Additional information is on my website maxpages.com/minnickward4

In North Ridgeville, Waterbury proposed 634 acres with 1,936 dwellings, 71 percent or about 1,383 are clusters. Meadowlakes proposed 595 acres with 1,775 cluster homes and 153 single- family homes for a total of 1,928 homes. At this writing, an ordinance is before council dealing with the terminology of triplex, and if adopted, residents may not have the opportunity to vote on multi-family units as required by our Charter.

Mills Creek and Ridgefield have been called PCDs. They are NOT. They are planned communities that were built under R-1 rather than our PCD ordinance. Ridgefield proposed 110 acres open space (22%), 712 single family homes, 191 detached clusters, total of 902 dwellings, no commercial, on 503 acres. Residents are not opposed to these developments because there is no automatic commercial and the density (which includes limited amounts of clusters) is not nearly as great as in our PCD ordinance. Our PCD ordinance allows up to 10% of the total acreage for commercial, 20% for open spaces (includes detention basins, parking lots, commercial golf courses, and wetlands), and there is no limit on the number of clusters.

Residents are not opposed to development as claimed by some developers. Residents are opposed to the kinds and amounts of green or open spaces, commercial, and density in our present PCD ordinance and the hardships they may cause our residents in years to come. Members of our community have been giving their input to the Building & Lands Committee as to how they would like to see our PCD ordinance revised. I hope that these members and council members do the responsible thing and revise our ordinance to lessen the burden massive housing can bring to our city.

Sincerely, Gail Minnick

minnickgail@hotmail.com

Page Updated Fri Oct 1, 2004 11:23pm EDT